by

Where communities thrive


  • Join over 1.5M+ people
  • Join over 100K+ communities
  • Free without limits
  • Create your own community
People
Activity
    Richard Meissner
    @rmeissner
    Hey
    sorry, normally the easiest is to contact us via telegram
    back to your question
    yes it is possible on contract level
    but the mobile apps and the web interface do not expose this
    https://github.com/gnosis/safe-contracts/blob/development/test/createCall.js shows an example how to do it by directly interacting with the contracts
    @NickCuso hope that this helps :)
    Richard Meissner
    @rmeissner
    using the lib you can even use create2 which makes it more deterministic what address the deployed contract will get
    Hardly Difficult
    @NickCuso
    oh cool - thanks, i'll check this out. any chance this is going to be added to the web interface in the next few weeks? :)
    Hardly Difficult
    @NickCuso
    also before i dive in, do you think it will be reasonably easy to port this test into a simple webpage that works with a real mainnet safe?
    latetot
    @latetot_twitter
    For team safe- Can you do a 2 of 2 multisig but allow one owner to make smaller transactions under X ETH per 24hr period
    Richard Meissner
    @rmeissner
    @NickCuso hey, sorry for the late reply. We have a developer portal on our roadmap and as part of this we will create simple web examples. So this might be part of that. (I could probably outline what you would have to do in a sample app, e.g. what requests and what rpc calls ... but I am not a web dev)
    @latetot_twitter This will be added in the future. See gnosis/safe-react#183
    Alex
    @nuevoalex
    Hey again all! Made a new GH issue requesting a feature: gnosis/safe-contracts#163
    🌵Andra
    @hello_andra_twitter
    Any Gnosis DevOps here?
    Richard Meissner
    @rmeissner
    @hello_andra_twitter @denisgranha
    He is one of our devops (@Uxio0 will also be available later this week)
    Ai Suzuki
    @aisuzuki

    Hi, has anyone ever load safe-contracts in a truffle project? I'd like to use the contracts to test my module.

    e.g,
    Project-A (truffle project)

        + node_modules
             + @gnosis.pm/safe-contracts
        + test
             - test.spec.js

    In test.spec.js


    ...
    const GnosisSafe = artifacts.require("@gnosis.pm/safe-contracts/GnosisSafe");

    ....

    Unfortunately GnosisSafe contract won't be found from truffle.

    Richard Meissner
    @rmeissner
    Hey, you need a contract that imports these (similar to https://github.com/gnosis/safe-modules/blob/master/contracts/Imports.sol)
    else truffle will not generate the required build artifacts
    once this is done you can use do artifacts.require("./GnosisSafe.sol"); (see https://github.com/gnosis/safe-modules/blob/master/test/dutchXCompleteModule.js#L5)
    Ai Suzuki
    @aisuzuki
    Oh wow great tip! Thank you so much!
    Justyna Broniszewska
    @JustynaBroniszewska

    Hi! I am trying to compile safe contracts and get the same bytecode as it is on etherscan (https://etherscan.io/address/0x76e2cfc1f5fa8f6a5b3fc4c8f4788f0116861f9b#code ). I copied the verified code and compiled it in remix. I get different bytecodes for different evmVersion settings but no bytecode matches the original (on etherscan). I also cloned your repository and run ’npx truffle compile’ and the bytecode I get also doesn’t match the previous ones.

    Here is what bytecodes I get :
    https://gist.github.com/sz-piotr/e57885a0c90c056957bed89ad2297b60
    How do I compile contracts to get the correct bytecode?

    Ai Suzuki
    @aisuzuki

    Hi, I got a question regarding event logs during truffle test.
    Environment

    I created a truffle project for a module, and when the test using "truffle test" fails, truffle test reporter fails decoding events with an error message below:
    Warning: Could not decode event!

    As far as I remember events while truffle test were displayed about 1 year ago, but does anyone have same experience?

    Richard Meissner
    @rmeissner
    @JustynaBroniszewska so the runtime bytecode you provide in your gist corresponds to the code at 0x76e2cfc1f5fa8f6a5b3fc4c8f4788f0116861f9b (retrieved via eth_getCode). To the question why is it not 100% the same you need to take a look at https://solidity.readthedocs.io/en/v0.6.1/metadata.html#encoding-of-the-metadata-hash-in-the-bytecode
    in the case of the proxy factory you have this twice in the byte code (once for the proxy contract and once for the factory contract)
    @aisuzuki afaik truffle 5 also uses web3js 1.x which is not compatible with the safe contracts right now (we have an issue to migrate)
    so if you want to run the tests you need to use truffle 4 (ganache version should be fine)
    update the issue just to keep track of it gnosis/safe-contracts#92
    Ai Suzuki
    @aisuzuki
    Thank you @rmeissner for your answer, I'll keep my eyes on that issue :)
    RichΛrd
    @richard-ramos

    Hi there!
    Does the multisig support deep linking or a way to pre-fill the custom transaction form?

    something like: https://gnosis-safe.io/safes/0xmultisig_address_here/#custom-transaction?to=0xto_address&value=1234&data=0xhex_encoded_data

    Richard Meissner
    @rmeissner
    @richard-ramos sorry for the late reply, I will check this and get back to you
    Richard Meissner
    @rmeissner
    I have seen that this was already answered in telegram, we created an issue to keep track of this: gnosis/safe-react#506
    Alex
    @nuevoalex
    Hey all! Curious what this issue is: gnosis/safe-relay-service#200
    it sounds like something we may be encountering
    where the relay is claiming txs with a lot of data are exceeding the block gas limit when theyre a good bit below it
    Richard Meissner
    @rmeissner
    When submitting a transaction that requires a large amount of gas and is routed through multiple contracts the estimation might not be correct because of https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/blob/master/EIPS/eip-150.md
    so actually not really specific to "big data" @uxio0
    Uxío
    @Uxio0
    Yes, bad naming :)
    Alex
    @nuevoalex
    Is the issue that the estimate is far too high relative to what it really is?
    or that its too low?
    Uxío
    @Uxio0
    In this case, too low
    Didi
    @d10r
    I just deployed the Safe contracts v1.1.1 on ARTIS tau1 by running npx truffle deploy (after added the network in truffle.js and setting ENV vars appropriately.
    The contracts were successfully deployed, however I didn't end up with the same addresses as in the deployments mentioned in the release notes.
    My suspicion is that it's due to compiler settings (e.g. the bundled truffle.js has solc.optimizer.enabled set to false)
    Where can I find the exact settings needed to get matching contract addresses?
    lukasschor
    @lukasschor

    Hey @d10r . Unfortunately, we will no longer maintain this support channel going forward, so if you have any inquiries, please use one of the channels below.

    Email: safe@gnosis.io
    Telegram: https://t.me/GnosisSafe
    Discord: https://chat.gnosis.io/

    Richard Meissner
    @rmeissner
    @d10r the contract addresses depend on your private key used to deploy the contracts. As you will not have access to our deployment keys it is impossible for you to deploy the contracts to the same address.
    Didi
    @d10r
    ok thx
    Mikko Ohtamaa
    @miohtama
    I am writing a new ERC-20 token contract. Would you recommend me to add in any modern features/EIPs to make user token interaction easier?
    E.g. gasless transactions for various wallets, no approve() needed for contract interaction and so on